Jerry Eichenberger wrote on 11/29/10 at 05:49:21:


What does this have to do with groping and peeping by the TSA? Surely you're not suggesting that children and soccer moms visiting SantaLand should submit to the same level of screening.

There's a "real threat" allright.  Mostly due to two things:

1. Foreigners hate US involvement in their countries that tends to get them slaughtered in numbers a terrorist could only dream of, and

2. Terrorists know that a single attack will make US citizens go into expensive, humiliating and useless conniptions for DECADES after the event.

As an aviation guy you should know that the only thing necessary to make a passenger airplane every as safe from hijackings as say, a FedEx cargo plane is to put a solid bulkhead between the cockpit and passengers.  Or failing that, at least get a good lock for the door and use it every time.  Why all this ridiculous security-theater instead?  Because the TSA and government policymakers in general are control freaks.  If you support this kind of crap, you're playing right into both the hands of the terrorists and the bicycle seat sniffers running the TSA.  And probably not enhancing safety in the long run, due to reason #2 above.  This is not fuzzy peace-and-love hippy BS, it's just a more comprehensive look at the whole security game.  

Unfortunately, the airlines are now separated from their market in regards to security, so they cannot respond to decreased air travel by making the screening process less intrusive.  Even so, I hope a great number of people arrange their lives so they can quit flying.  Then maybe after a very long time, and in a very roundabout way, an airline passenger will again be able to fly with some dignity.

mick wrote on 11/29/10 at 11:02:25:

No comment Jerry ?

Mick -

Just an example of what I spokje of earlier.  Here in Ohio about a year or so ago, the remnants of Hurricane Ike came raring thru with about 70 mph winds.

We had a few shingles blown off of our roof at home.  My wife called our home insurance company, expecting to get those shingles replaced.

The adjuster came out, measured the damaged area which was fairly small, about 10 by 15 feet, but on the front side of the roof where you plainly see it from the road.

A few days later the adjuster called and told her that with the age of our roof and how shingles normally fade from sunlight and rain wearing on them, new shingles there would stick out like a sore thumb.  He then said that the company would pay for a new roof, and about 10 days later, a check for $22,000 showed up in the mail.  We got a completely new roof on the entire house.  We dealt with one person, not some line of gov't bureaucrats.

Back in 2004 when I had the 2 stents put in my heart, out of a total bill of about $48,000, I think we paid maybe $1,000.

That's just typical of my experience with insurance companies from the few claims we've made over the years.  I like private insurance.

Jerry,

Maybe it helps to have a wife in the industry.

Under very similar circumstances to what you describe with your roof, this is what happened to me. Got a good chunk of shingles blew off the back of my house (enough to cause leaks inside. The insurance person (not sure if they are called an adjuster, estimator, inspector, or something else) came out and said the shingles would have to be replaced and that most likely half the roof would need to be replaced, and gave me a damage estimate. I got quotes from several contractors who all said that half the roof would need to be replaced. I called the insurance company who said I needed three quotes. I said I had three quotes, but probably would need to get some immediate protection in case it rained again. The person I talked to at the insurance company said that the paperwork wasn't "through" and that it "was up to you (me) to mitigate damages" if I couldn't get someone to repair the roof. The lowest quote for repair was lower than the insurance companies estimate and the contractor was available because almost everyone with roof damage was still trying to get things worked through with their insurance company so I went ahead and had the work done. When I sent the bill to the insurance company, the same person that I talked to before said that they wouldn't allow the bill, because I didn't allow time for their person (the person that came out in the first place) to come out and re-inspect the damage???
After a few back and forths, they said that they would only allow a portion of the bill. The amount that they disallowed was almost the exact amount that my lawyer said that it would cost to sue them (and win). He estimated that I would end up spending a couple of days in court. I had been using this same insurance company since I got my first car back in the 70s. I decided to pull all my insurance with them (including my business policies). The premiums they lost in the first six months would have been more than the total cost of the roof. Needless to say my agent wasn't really happy, but the adjuster couldn't care less.

I have since found out that the adjusters at this company receive compensation based on the amount that they can reduce claims. They are independent of the premium side of the business.

My experiences with health care companies is even worse. All insurance companies care about is their bottom line.

Jerry you just proved what is wrong with private insurance,You shouldn't have got a hold new roof put on,That why premiums are high,And the over pay for the airplane.Their just as crooked as our government.

Jerry,

See my comments below.

By the way, my opinion in all of this is that the insurance industry doesn't have the best interest of the country or their customers as their primary interest. Which also in my opinion is why we should get them out of the health care debate entirely.

Jerry Eichenberger wrote on 11/29/10 at 13:27:21:

Jerry Eichenberger wrote on 11/29/10 at 11:36:42:


Jerry, if your point was that there should be profiling, I did miss that and don't think it is a good idea.  The problem with profiling (besides bad aesthetics) is that it backfires on implementation. You'd have to objectively define and codify the criteria by which to judge a book by its cover.  That has to be done to generate the policy. Let's see What are your options are:

By religion? Good luck ramming that one through.. all religions are "religions of peace" don't you know.  One squawk for "equal rights" and the TSA will be sniffing your crotch right along with Muslims. You simply will not get special treatment focused on people on the basis of religion.  Even if you could, how would it be tracked, by a church registry? Would that not be the easiest thing in the world to fake.  This idea, fairly applied, would mean that people who don't indulge in beliefs in an afterlife/eternal rewards AT ALL are the ones who would pass through the TSA express line. Not even that has any chance whatsoever of being implemented.

The passenger looks "freaky" - what exactly does that mean, and who gets to decide what constitutes freaky, and how much freakyness is acceptable before the latex gloves come out? It falls back on the subjective opinion of a TSA employee.  It opens the door for the embarrassment that we have now, high school dropouts on a power-trip making travelers dance around in a certain way. Little dictators singling people out arbitrarily. There is not a single feature of appearance that can be used as an reliable index, and if there was, terrorists would just be sure to not have that feature.

The passenger "looks middle-eastern" - if you propose to use that, prepare to be tarred and feathered for outright bigotry.  Age discrimination doesn't work either - wasn't the shoe bomber pretty old?

Then there's the cracks, oh those pesky 0.001% cracks. Once the screening criteria are defined, so are the cracks.  The traits needed to avoid the screening are then known and can be exploited.  Terrorists will just use people and methods that bypass scrutiny.  What is now just a tiny little "crack" would become a chasm big enough to drive a truck full of ammonium nitrate through.

If you're thinking this stuff should all be kept a secret, kind of like the locations of certain US prisons and the interrogation methods and "special" trial procedures that get people thrown in them, then you've got constitutional problems and have probably fallen prey to the unprincipled douchebaggery that is all over TV.  You don't know what "certain people" are the "animals" or give a reliable way to identify them, yet you propose that they be hassled for trying to board a plane.